Judgment : 1. The appellant has preferred the present D.B. Income Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the judgment dated 23.02.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur for the assessment years 1990-1991 to 2000-2001. 2. A search operation was carried out on 29.07.1999 under Section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1961’) in the case of Satish Chand Dhussa (hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’). It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that at the time of search, the appellant- Suresh Kumar Chawla was also found present in the house of the assessee, as he was the brother-in-law of the assessee. A bag containing certain loose papers was found and seized from the possession of assessee. The assessee clarified during assessment proceedings under Section 158BC that the bag and documents were not related to him. The learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Bikaner vide his letter No. 1213 dated 10.01.2003 informed the then DCIT, Sriganganagar that action under Section 158BD was to be taken against the appellant- Suresh Kumar Chawla. Pursuant to it, the assessment order dated 21.03.2005 was passed by the Assessing Officer against appellant whereafter, an appeal was preferred and the same was partly allowed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bikaner vide order dated 31.08.2005. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant makes a clear submission that for the proceeding under Sections 158BC and 157BD, it is a mandatory condition for the Assessing Officer to reach and record a satisfaction in respect of the person, other than the person with respect of whom search is made, in order to proceed under Section 158BC against such other person. 3.1 Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Manish Maheshwari vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. reported in 2007 (3) SCC 794 . The relevant part of the above judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “158-BD. Undisclosed income of any other person. 3.1 Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Manish Maheshwari vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. reported in 2007 (3) SCC 794 . The relevant part of the above judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “158-BD. Undisclosed income of any other person. Where the assessing officer is satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs to any person, other than the person with respect to whom search was made under Section 132 or whose books of account or other documents or any assets were requisitioned under Section 132-A, then, the books of account, other documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the assessing officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that assessing officer shall proceed against such other person and the provisions of this Chapter shall apply accordingly.” Condition precedent for invoking a block assessment is that a search has been conducted under Section 132, or documents or assets have been requisitioned under Section 132-A. The said provision would apply in the case of any person in respect of whom search has been carried out under Section 132 or documents or assets have been requisitioned under Section 132-A. Section 158-BD, however, provides for taking recourse to a block assessment in terms of Section 158-BC in respect of any other person, the conditions precedents wherefor are: (i) satisfaction must be recorded by the assessing officer that any undisclosed income belongs to any person, other than the person with respect to whom search was made under Section 132 of the Act; (ii) the books of accounts or other documents or assets seized or requisitioned had been handed over to the assessing officer having jurisdiction over such other person; and (iii) the assessing officer has proceeded under Section 158-BC against such other person.” 3.2 Learned counsel for the appellant also draws the attention of this Court to Paragraph No. 19 of the impugned order, which reads as follows:- “19. After perusing the entire records either available before us, or called from the records of the department, other evidence towards which our attention was drawn, we are satisfied that in the assessment order framed in the case of Shri Satish Chand Dhuss, no satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer, the Dy. CIT [TDS], Bikaner, on 27.07.2001. After perusing the entire records either available before us, or called from the records of the department, other evidence towards which our attention was drawn, we are satisfied that in the assessment order framed in the case of Shri Satish Chand Dhuss, no satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer, the Dy. CIT [TDS], Bikaner, on 27.07.2001. Action u/s 158BD, in this case, has been taken on the initiation of ACIT, Circle-2, Bikaner, who vide his letter No.1213 dated 10.01.2003 had intimated that action u/s 158BD be carried against Shri Suresh Kumar Chawla. This letter also refers to various documents, namely, Annexures AA-5, AA-8 and AA-10, besides the admission of this assessee that some loose-paper were written in his hand.” 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has however relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income-Tax-III v. Calcutta Knitwears reported in (2014) 43 Taxmann 446 (SC), in which it was held that:- “We would certainly say that before initiating proceedings under Section 158-BD of the Act, the assessing officer who has initiated proceedings for completion of the assessments under Section 158-BC of the Act should be satisfied that there is an undisclosed income which has been traced out when a person was searched under Section 132 or the books of accounts were requisitioned under Section 132-A of the Act. This is in contrast to the provisions of Section 148 of the Act where recording of reasons in writing are a sine qua non. Under Section 158-BD the existence of cogent and demonstrative material is germane to the assessing officers' satisfaction in concluding that the seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person is necessary for initiation of action under Section 158-BD. The bare reading of the provision indicates that the satisfaction note could be prepared by the assessing officer either at the time of initiating proceedings for completion of assessment of a searched person under Section 158-BC of the Act or during the stage of the assessment proceedings. It does not mean that after completion of the assessment, the assessing officer cannot prepare the satisfaction note to the effect that there exists income tax belonging to any person other than the searched person in respect of whom a search was made under Section 132 or requisition of books of accounts was made under Section 132-A of the Act. It does not mean that after completion of the assessment, the assessing officer cannot prepare the satisfaction note to the effect that there exists income tax belonging to any person other than the searched person in respect of whom a search was made under Section 132 or requisition of books of accounts was made under Section 132-A of the Act. The language of the provision is clear and unambiguous. The legislature has not imposed any embargo on the assessing officer in respect of the stage of proceedings during which the satisfaction is to be reached and recorded in respect of the person other than the searched person. In the result, we hold that for the purpose of Section 158-BD of the Act a satisfaction note is sine qua non and must be prepared by the assessing officer before he transmits the records to the other assessing officer who has jurisdiction over such other person. The satisfaction note could be prepared at either of the following stages: (a) at the time of or along with the initiation of proceedings against the searched person under Section 158-BC of the Act; (b) along with the assessment proceedings under Section 158-BC of the Act; and (c) immediately after the assessment proceedings are completed under Section 158-BC of the Act of the searched person.” 4.1 The counsel for the respondent also agrees upon the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that for the purpose of Section 158BD of the Act of 1961, a satisfaction note has to be unconditionally prepared by the Assessing Officer before he transmits the record to the other Assessing Officer who has jurisdiction over such person. But the only difference is that there are certain stages which have been prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Calcutta Knitwears’ case (supra) as to when a satisfaction note could be prepared. These are: (a) at the time of or along with the initiation of proceedings against the searched person under Section 158BC of the Act, (b) along with the assessment proceedings under Section 158BC of the Act and (c) immediately after the assessment proceedings are completed under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act. 4.2 Learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn attention of this Court to Paragraph No. 21 of the impugned order, which reads as follows:- “21. 4.2 Learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn attention of this Court to Paragraph No. 21 of the impugned order, which reads as follows:- “21. The Assessing Officer, in this assessee’s case recorded the following office order on 10.03.2003. “Search u/s 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was conducted in case of Shri Satish Chand Dhussa on 29.7.1999. Certain papers marked as Annexures AA-5, AA-8 and AA-10 were seized by the department as per Panchnama dated 29.7.1999. Shri Suresh Kumar has filed an affidavit dated 10.08.2000 attached with the return of Shri Satish Chand for the block assessment and also appeared before the DCIT, Bikaner on 6.11.2000. In his statements recorded, he stated that the above loose-papers as per Annexures AA-5, AA-8 and AA- 10 belong to him and, he owns the responsibility of transactions of these papers. Shri Suresh Kumar also opened a back account No.2630 in Kendriya Sahakari Bank, Gajsinghpur and made deposit on various dates from 16.7.1998 to 20.08.1998 aggregating to Rs. 16,52,578/-. Issue of notice u/s 158BD of the I.T. Act, 1961.”” 4.3 The respondent has referred to the impugned order and has submitted that the reasons were stated in the order and it has been rightly held by the Tribunal. 5. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties is of the firm opinion that once the search was conducted under Section 132 of the Act of 1961 against the assessee-Satish Chand Dhussa on 29.07.1999 and certain papers were seized by the department and Panchnama was also prepared and after recording its reasons in letter dated 10.03.2003, it was recommended that a notice be issued under Section 158BD of the Act of 1961, the learned tribunal has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer under Section 158BD of the Act of 1961. This Court further notes that it is also true that the original proceedings did not have the recorded satisfaction however the letter dated 10.01.2003 is in tandem with the third condition laid down in Calcutta Knitwears’ case (Supra) and thus, no interference is called for in the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the present Income Tax Appeal is dismissed.